Abortion: A Question of Women’s Rights, Morality—or Both?

April 5, 2010

While discussing abortion recently, a
friend of mine made two arguments that go something like this: abortion
is a women’s rights issue, and, even further, women (and their doctors)
alone should be the ones making the decisions. That is, a woman should
have the right to have an abortion, and nobody should be interfering
with that, or her decision. These are two arguments that need to be
dealt with separately, the first being whether abortion is purely a
women’s rights issue, and second, how open the debate should be on the
matter.

Firstly, for political liberals at least,
it seems abortion is already a women’s rights issue. We rarely hear our
lawmakers or other public officials defending the legality of abortion
based on the concepts of the soul or fetal personhood; instead, we
hear them argue that a woman should have the right to choose. Yet there
seems to be a problem with the communication of this defense. Consider
that roughly half of Americans think abortion should be usually or
always illegal, objecting to the practice because it is the destruction
of something worth our moral concerns and/or rights. Even many liberals
are hesitant on the matter because of their faith, or their fear of
upsetting social norms. Polling data suggests public opinion has been
unchanged over the years on this issue. What can we do, then, to solve
our problem?

I don't claim to have all the answers, but as it stands, the two
sides in this debate are talking past each other, and there's no real
discussion on the beliefs that drive the controversy itself. For the
right, abortion is almost always wrong because it is murder. Liberals
respond that women have the right to choose what to do with their own
bodies. But, then, liberals are effectively defending a woman’s right
to commit murder, and thus the debate wrongly focuses on how much power
we give women over their body and the fetus. Instead, what liberals
must first do is defend why abortion should be a woman's choice. I
suspect liberals avoid this move for at least two reasons: first,
liberals don’t often like to dig too deeply into religiously influenced
issues, as debate can get contentious; and second, liberals have
already won the moral case in their own minds. But open, honest debate
is necessary in our open democracy. And even if you have won a debate
in your own mind, you still need to convince the public you are right.
So, how can a supporter of choice do that?

At least two answers rest in the concepts of morality and legal
rights. Do fetuses deserve our moral consideration? Should society
grant them legal rights? To get moral consideration from us, it would
seem reasonable to demand sufficient evidence that a fetus is aware of
itself, able to suffer (not just that it responds to stimuli, but that
it can experience what it is like to respond to stimuli). As for
rights, we give these to protect the freedom – the interests of human beings, of persons –
in a society. So, if not completely aware of itself, to be granted
rights, a fetus must at least need its freedom protected, or have
interests, whether its own or from others.

Perhaps the most important matter for us to clear up is the
difference between first and second-term abortions, and late-term
abortions. We need to do this for two reasons. First, research shows
that fetuses are
unlikely to suffer pain
until around 26 or 27 weeks (more
here
)
into the pregnancy (also around the time of viability, though we should
note even viable fetuses need tremendous care). Second,
only 1.4 percent of all abortions
in the United States annually, occur after 21 weeks. Yes, you read
correctly: roughly 99 percent of all abortions in the U.S. take place
before a fetus is equipped to suffer. In fact,
90 percent of all abortions
in the U.S. occur in the first 13 weeks, nowhere near the controversial
26th or 27th weeks. So while we still lack conclusive evidence about
what late-term fetuses can experience, (I will return to this in a
moment), it seems we reach a point here where abortion is hardly a
moral issue, as nearly all abortions performed in the U.S. happen when
the fetus cannot be expected to suffer.

Many will argue here that we are destroying “human life.” But as
Peter Singer has pointed out, of course a fetus is human life – yet
what does this do to clear up whether or not we have moral
responsibilities for the object, or whether the object deserves rights?
As a society, we don’t seem to generally feel concerned for the
suffering or rights of other basic forms of human life – like the cells
that encompass our entire body. Why is that? Because not all human life
matters.

Many will go further, arguing a fetus is not just human life, but a
human person, thus deserving our considerations. But this would be
stretching the bounds of the words so far that they would cease to mean
anything. A person, or human being, at the very least has interests,
and is usually conscious or sentient, aware of its surroundings. In
turn, this person wants to be protected by rights from the state so
that it can live out its life free of oppression from the state or from
neighbors. But in just about every abortion performed in the U.S., the
fetus isn’t conscious or sentient. So how can a fetus want freedom or
rights? Even if we wanted to grant the fetus rights, why would we do so
for an object which we have no reason to believe is part of our moral
circle? In this vein, considering we have more moral obligation to the
fully human mother than the fetus, there is no basis for society to
preemptively grant the fetus rights in wanting to protect its freedom
over the freedom of the mother.

The fetus has an interest in staying alive, though, right? Surely;
but in that case, so does an ant, and I don’t see people walking very
carefully on the sidewalks. Many things have an interest in staying
alive that we do not grant moral consideration or rights. In this case,
a fetus cannot even have an interest in living to its potential, for it
does not even know it is living currently. But doesn’t the mother have
an interest in keeping the fetus alive? Maybe – but the decision is
hers at this point. When a human being loses the ability to be aware of
his or her own interests, we pass responsibility over to the
significant other or next of kin – to the person who has an interest in
the situation. Given that the mother has rights, and that there is
little to no moral tie to the fetus, the mother is then allowed to
decide if the fetus has interests. The interests of the fetus are the
interests of the mother.

With this, the act of abortion may no longer be a moral issue for us – but we still have a moral issue when we consider that a woman’s right to get an abortion is severely restricted in the U.S. As
Rachel Maddow reported
via the
Alan Guttmacher Institute
, in 87 percent of all U.S. counties, it is impossible to get an abortion. Securing the right to have an abortion might even help resolve the problem of third-term abortions. Consider that
a Guttmacher survey
of women who had third-term abortions found half of them had a
difficult time arranging to have an abortion. If abortions were more
available, it seems the need to worry about third-term abortions would
lessen.

Now we finally get to the lingering issue of open debate. Clearly
there is much to learn about the fetus in the third term, and that is a
conversation worth having. Moreover, although we have reached some
level of determination about fetal rights before that, there is still
much to learn about this issue – and not just for women. All members of
society – tied to neighbors by law and conscience – ought to be
concerned about the potential suffering and/or interests of a fetus. If
there is compelling evidence that a fetus can suffer at some point in
its existence, or a gripping argument that the fetus should be kept
alive, everyone in society should be willing to listen. This argument
goes the same way when we are speaking of women’s rights. Women’s
rights are a moral issue not just for women, but everyone in society.

Yet while we cannot convince everyone to care, at the same time,
nobody can be excluded from conversation either. Indeed, we probably
shouldn't want it any other way. Clearly, religious believers care
about abortion, and as political philosopher David Miller points out in
"
Political Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction
,"
these concerns cannot be dismissed considering how widely they are
held. But secularists care, too. So we’re all in the public square
together. This is not a problem; the problem is figuring out how to go
forth from there. A debate needs to be had, but how will it be carried
out? In this specific case, do we respond to these people with the
women’s rights argument, or do we ask them to substantiate their
beliefs about the soul and personhood first? I think we will find the
latter is the necessary route. And in asking questions, and making the
moral and legal case, we must still keep our eyes on the moral issue of women's access abortion.

Comments:

If the same child is born with a parasitic twin, I have seen very few ‘pro-lifers’ argue for the right of that twin on the basis of its humanity or ‘soul’. As a matter of fact, I have never seen anyone ever argue for the life of the twin, and I fail to understand the difference and they fail to understand the cognitive dissonance because of the horror of seeing a human head peeking out of a twin’s back or abdomen or wherever it may be. I will always hold that abortion is the woman’s choice and a private decision between her and her doctor.

#2 Deepak Shetty (Guest) on Wednesday April 14, 2010 at 11:32am

You always seem to target the wrong crowd to convince. Liberals are perfectly willing to discuss limits on abortion (which week , what factors , what conditions etc).
The problem lies with those who believe that a soul is magically injected at conception and any abortion therefore is wrong. However well reasoned , well argued, moral , reasonable your argument may be , as long as you have a conclusion that abortion is acceptable before some stage, the people who strongly believe in a soul wont be convinced. There is really no way to beat this argument , since arguing that there is no such thing as a soul will get you nowhere.

#3 Pandora (Guest) on Wednesday April 14, 2010 at 3:23pm

Debate my @#&—-I’m tired of being considered life support for a baby. In every other area of law your body parts are considered yours—-even after you’re dead. No one can force you to donate blood, even if there is a fully ensouled adult who will die without use of your body. You are not required to do a thing to help them.

When some conservative starts yammering about dead babies, ask them if they support government forced blood/organ donations. Do they think a doctor should remove a liver from a corpse, over the objection of the family or written instructions from the deceased? What if a cute baby needs that liver, or she’ll die?

Something I didn’t write in the piece but considered later was how the scales of moral and legal standing still might still exist when the fetus or baby approach sentience, consciousness. That is—and I think Peter Singer thought this up—the interests of late-term fetuses and even newborns do not outweigh the interests and considerations of the mother, father, and doctor. Many conditions allow for procedures at such times, at the least: disorders, mother’s health, rape, incest. I would add living conditions and perhaps some other exceptions. Most women who get late-term abortions say they waited so long not out of desire, but because it was very tough to secure the abortion itself.

#6 PMon (Guest) on Thursday April 15, 2010 at 6:12am

As @Pandora suggests, the debate should be framed not as the nebulous “a woman’s right to choose” or “a fetus’s right to be born,” but as “describe a circumstance under which an entity (government, corporation, individual) can compel a pregnant woman to bring to term a pregnancy that she wants or needs to terminate, and how would that compulsion be administered.” Would a pregnant woman who needs an abortion have to be locked up? Would she be monitored around the clock, perhaps under house arrest with a security anklet? Should she be punitively fined for her decision? Would abortion providers be outlawed? Would a desperate woman have to resort to unregulated, unsafe “back-alley” abortionists?

Another thing to consider is that a society where abortions are legally and safely available and where there are fewer religio-emotional objections to this otherwise routine medical procedure might also be a society where men and women are better educated and are likely to make intelligent reproductive choices at the outset, thereby reducing overall the number of abortions needed.

#7 Deepak Shetty (Guest) on Thursday April 15, 2010 at 9:13am

@Michael
Yes I know where you were focusing and I repeat you are focusing on the wrong area. Is there any way to debate or convince or discuss abortion with someone who believes a soul enters at the point of conception?

Will he/she ever accept any abortion(except for where the mothers life is also at stake)? and if not, then whether you argue using rights/morality/pain/viability are all moot. These are useful when you try to set boundaries in abortion, its not useful to debate abortion.

#8 Brian Rutledge (Guest) on Thursday April 15, 2010 at 1:45pm

When does human life begin? Is it when the sperm first penetrates the egg? Is it when the genetic material from male and female first combine? Etc Etc. No one can answer that through debate. When does a mother’s right begin or end ? No debate will answer that either. The abortion issue, as shown in Roe v Wade, will be settled in court by nine men and women who can’t answer the questions either,while the public debate rages on. Might as well debate the chicken or egg conundrum

>> Is there any way to debate or convince or discuss abortion with someone who believes a soul enters at the point of conception?<<

Easily, if they actually believed in the soul, then they should assume that it won’t be killed by the abortion and will go straight to heaven since it didn’t have time to do anything “evil”.

Off course the mother would burn in hell for eternity (which should make religious people quite happy).

In the end it’s hard to know why these people object besides the simple fact that they want to control other people’s lives having very unfulfilled ones themselves.

#10 Brian Rutledge (Guest) on Thursday April 15, 2010 at 4:41pm

I think Jack has a point-it is all about control. I often wonder if people are so concerned about abortion, why they are not as concerned about intro-fertilization where thousands of embryos don’t make it either. Not even a peep about that

#11 Deepak Shetty (Guest) on Thursday April 15, 2010 at 10:50pm

@Jack

Easily, if they actually believed in the soul, then they should assume that it won’t be killed by the abortion and will go straight to heaven

Not till it has accepted Jesus, right? You condemn the poor fetus to limbo (or was that last years theology?)

In the end it’s hard to know why these people object besides the simple fact that they want to control other people’s lives having very unfulfilled ones themselves.

Not necessarily. Do you accept abortion at any and all times, no limits on the number of weeks (excluding harm to mother conditions)? And if you don’t is is because you feel the need to control others?